Case Laws: Fundamental Rights Vs. DPSP

Sr.No.	Milestone	Description
1.	Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)	Supreme Court (SC) in its verdict said that in case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights would always prevail. It also said that Directive principles have to work as a supplement with Fundamental rights & Parliament can’t amend Fundamental Rights
2.	Golaknath Case (1967)	SC in it’s verdict said Parliament can’t amend Fundamental Rights to give effect to the Directive Principles
3.	24th Amendment Act, 1971	It was done in reaction to Golaknath Case judgement. It declared that Parliament has the right to amend the Fundamental Right by use of Constitutional Amendment
4.	25th Amendment Act, 1971	It was done in reaction to Golaknath Case judgement. It inserted a new Article 31c which contained the following two provisions: i) No law which gives effect to the directive principles can be declared invalid and unconstitutional on the grounds that it is violating fundamental rights namely Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 19(protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc) & Article 31(right to property). ii)No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy. Note: Remember, Right to Property was a fundamental right at this time.
5.	Kesavananda Bharti Case (1973)	SC in its verdict held that the second provision mentioned in the Article 31c is invalid & unconstitutional as it is taking away the power of court for judicial review. However, first provision of Article 31c is valid & constitutional.
6.	42nd Amendment  Act, 1976	Position of Directive Principles was made superior to Fundamental Rights
7.	Minerva Mills Case (1980)	SC in its decision declared that Directive Principles are subordinate to Fundamental Rights. But position of Fundamental Rights under Article 14 & Article 19 were made subordinate to Directive Principles. SC also said that Constitution demands to maintain balance between the Fundamental Rights & Directive principles. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. Note: Right to property (Article 31 – a fundamental right) was abolished by 44th Amendment Act (1978)
8.	Present Position	For now Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over Directive Principles (except Article 14 & Article 19). Parliament is entitled to amend Fundamental Right to give effect to the Directive Principles as long as it does not give effect to the basic structure of the constitution. Courtesy of; Taken from: www.erewise.com/current-affairs/directive-principles-of-state-policy_art53202097534ad.html#.V3EwFhKm0qE

Case laws on DPSP

Dear All,

While we discussed the various aspects of the DPSP, I felt it of essence to look into the position taken by the Supreme Court / High Court..I am providing with the links of some cases for your reference:

1. Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. Union of India - (Art. 39-A, the social objective of equal justice and free legal aid has to be implemented by suitable legislation or by formulating schemes for free legal aid. [986 C-E]) Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1693007 

2. Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 July, 1992 (Article 41, Right to Education) Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/40715/?formInput=Article%2041

Contribute more cases to develop a repository.

You can give a link of the case so that all of can learn more..